COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, Chafin and Senior Judge Annunziata

LORI DENNIS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0576-14-1 PER CURIAM JULY 29, 2014 YORK-POQUOSON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY Marc Jacobson, Judge (Stephen K. Smith, on brief), for appellant. (Melanie B. Economou, Assist ant County Attorney; Sara Riley Yohn, Guardian ad litem for the minor childr en, on brief), for appellee.
Lori Dennis (mother) appeals the orders terminat ing her rights to thre e of her children and approving the orders with the goal of adoption. Mother argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to strike and proceedin g with the goal of adoption and te rminating her parental rights to her three children. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accord ingly, we summarily affirm the d ecision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
BACKGROUND We view the evidence in the light most favor able to the prevailing party below and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Logan v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep’t of Human Dev., 13 Va. App. 123, 128, 409 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1991).

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - Mother has three children who ar e the subject of this appeal. 1 On December 15, 2011, the police conducted a drug task force raid of five houses in York County and James City County. Mother lived in one of the houses that was raided in York Count y. As a result of the raid, the police arrested mother on severa l drug-related charges. The York-Poquoson Department of Social Services (the Department) removed the children from the home. While mother was released on bond pending her trial, the children remained in the Department’s custody. On February 28, 2012, the York-Poquoson Juven ile and Domestic Relations District Court (the JDR court) found the children to be abused and neglected. The JDR court approved the foster care plans with concurrent goals of return home and relative placement. The Department established several goals for mother in order for the children to return to her home. In order to assist mother, the Department refe rred her to Colonial Behavioral Health for a substance abuse assessment and mental health as sessment. They also arranged for her to have supervised visitation with the children and info rmed her of the children’s medical appointments. Mother completed a substance abuse assessm ent and mental health assessment. The provider recommended that she participate in the women’s substance abuse group therapy. Mother was late to the first meeting and was resc heduled to begin the group later. Mother did not attend. It also was recommended that moth er participate in Narc otics Anonymous (NA) and/or Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, but she did not do so. She also was supposed to meet with a licensed psychiatrist for possibl e medical management, but she did not do so. The Department told mother that she need ed to find adequate and stable housing and employment. She lost her job at a gas station pr ior to her incarceration and did not find suitable housing.

1 Mother has a fourth child, who was removed from her home and placed with her father.- 3 - Mother did not maintain weekly contact with the Department. The Department tried to arrange for weekly supervised vi sitation, but mother attended vi sitations on a “sporadic” basis. On April 23, 2012, mother was incarcerated for her criminal offenses. She pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to manufact ure methamphetamines and was sentenced to sixty-six months in prison. While in prison, mo ther signed up for a drug treatment program. She also completed academic, job training, and parenting classes. After mother was incarcerate d, the Department changed the fo ster care goal to relative placement. The Department offered services to the maternal grandparents, Cynthia and William Dennis, and provided them with several goals. The Department asked that they complete a substance abuse evaluation and a parenting capa city evaluation, which they completed. The Department determined that the maternal gra ndparents did not have adequate housing because a boarder, the father of mother’s f ourth child, lived with them. They also failed to participate in family counseling, maintain week ly contact with the Department , and provide documentation of their current income. The Department also had concerns about the maternal grandparents’ ability to parent the children and meet their needs. Dr. Jennifer Gild ea, a licensed clinical ps ychologist, evaluated the parenting capacity of the grandparents. Dr. Gildea met with the maternal grandparents and observed them interact with the children. Sh e explained that the gr andparents had a “laissez faire” approach to parenting and were permissive a nd lenient. She testifie d that she did not think that they would be an appropriate placement for the children because “they would need an intensive high level of support a nd intervention and education a nd wrap-around services to get them to begin to recognize the needs that were th ere so that they could be appropriate advocates for the grandchildren.” Dr . Gildea made numerous recommendations regarding the grandparents. The Department reviewed the r ecommendations with the grandparents, and they- 4 - were not receptive to completing them. Base d on the substance abuse evaluation, Dr. Gildea’s evaluation, and their living situation, the Department determined that the grandparents were not an appropriate placement for the children. The Department investigated other relative s as possible placements for the children; however, the Department was unable to locate any re latives that were suitable and interested in caring for the children. In 2013, the JDR court terminated mother’s pa rental rights and approved the foster care plans with the goal of adoption. Moth er appealed to the circuit court. On January 16, 2014, the trial court heard ev idence and argument from the parties on whether mother’s parental rights should be termin ated. At the conclusion of the Department’s case, mother made a motion to strike, which the court denied. Mother and the maternal grandparents testified. At the c onclusion of all of the evidence, mother renewed her motion to strike, which the court denied. The trial court co ncluded that it was not in the best interests of the children to be placed with the maternal gr andparents. The trial co urt found that mother did not comply with the Department’s required term s and conditions within a reasonable period of time. 2 It held that it was in the children’s best interests for mother’s parental rights to be terminated. Furthermore, the tria l court approved the foster care plan with the goal of adoption. The trial court entered orders reflecting its ru lings on February 26, 2014. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS Mother argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to strike and entering the orders to terminate her parental rights and a pprove the foster care plans with the goal of adoption.

2 At the time of the hearing in circuit court, the children had been in foster care for approximately two years.- 5 - “Where, as here, the court hears the evidence ore tenus , its finding is en titled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unle ss plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Martin v. Pittsylvania Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986) (citations omitted). When considering te rmination of parental rights, “the paramount consideration of a trial court is the child’s best interest s.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 128, 409 S.E.2d
at 463. I. Relative placement Mother argues that the trial court erred in not placing the children with the maternal grandparents. She explains that the children ha d lived with the maternal grandparents for most of their lives, and the maternal grandparents wanted custody of the children. She contends the Department did not recommend them as a relati ve placement based on Dr. Gildea’s report, but asserts that Dr. Gildea only saw them interact with the children on one day. Before terminating a parent’s rights, “the court shall give a consideration to granting custody to relatives of the child, including grandparents.” Code § 16.1-283(A). The “Department has a duty to produce sufficient evid ence so that the court may properly determine whether there are relatives willing and suitable to take custody of the child, and to consider such relatives in comparison to other placement opti ons.” Logan, 13 Va. App. at 131, 409 S.E.2d at 465. The maternal grandparents failed to co mply with the Department’s goals and requirements so that they could be considered as a viable relative placement. Although the grandparents completed the substance abuse a nd parenting evaluations , they did not follow through with the recommendations. They did no t maintain adequate housing; they did not participate in family therapy; they did not pr ovide documentation of their current income; and they did not maintain contact with the Department. They did not demonstrate an ability to meet- 6 - the children’s needs. Dr. Gildea testified that sh e did not find the grandp arents to be a suitable placement for the children. The trial court accepted Dr. Gildea’s testimony and recommendation. It did not find that the maternal grandparents would be an acceptable relative placement for the children, and there were no other suitable relatives who were willing to care for the children. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in approving the foster care plans with the goal of adoption. II. Termination of parental rights Mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Code § 16.1-283( C)(2), which states that a court may terminate parental rights if: The parent or parents, without good cause, have been unwilling or unable within a reasonable peri od of time not to exceed twelve months from the date the child wa s placed in foster care to remedy substantially the conditio ns which led to or required continuation of the child’s foster care placement, notwithstanding the reasonable and appropriate efforts of social, medical, mental health or other rehabilitative agencies to such end. Mother argues that her incarce ration is “the primary cause of her inability to remedy the conditions that led to foster care.” She cont ends that she has shown “a consistent and active interest in her children” by writi ng letters to them and the Depart ment while in prison. Once she was incarcerated, she took several parenting clas ses and other classes to improve her education and job skills. She asserts that “her failure to remedy the conditions was not without good
cause.” While long-term incarceration does not, per se, authorize termination of parental rights . . . it is a valid and proper circumstance which, when combined with other evidence concerning the parent / child relationship, can support a court’s finding by clear and convincing eviden ce that the best interests of the children will be served by termination. Ferguson v. Stafford Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 14 Va. App. 333, 340, 417 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1992).- 7 - Mother was on bond for four months after th e children were removed and prior to her incarceration. During that time , mother missed the meeting for the women’s substance abuse group therapy, and when it was rescheduled, she did not attend. She did not participate in NA or AA meetings while on bond. She did not maintain weekly contact with the Department, and her visitations with the children were “sporadic.” At the time of the hearing in circuit court, the children had been in foster care for approximately two years, and mother still had se veral years left on her pr ison sentence. “It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend a lengthy period of time waiting to find out when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resu ming his [or her] responsi bilities.” Kaywood v. Halifax Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs ., 10 Va. App. 535, 540, 394 S.E.2d 492, 495 (1990). The evidence proved that mother was unable to remedy substantially the conditions that led to or required continuation of the children’s foster care placement, within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating her parental rights to her three children.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ru ling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.